In a prior post, I used the moving of Sheik Khalid Mohammed’s trial from downtown NYC to illustrate some culturist principles. That rights come from cultures that can afford them and believe in them was my main point. Mohammed’s right to have a trial will disrupt the lives of whomever it comes near and will cost lots of money. Like rights, as many know and only some suspect, money is not metaphysical. We cannot just print more and have it hold value. The 200 million a year we spend assuring Mohammed gets his rights must come at the expense of services many American’s also assume they have a right to.
In comments, some serious objections to this foundational culturist philosophical tenet were raised. One set of comments claimed, “Rights that are the result of cost/risk-benefit are not rights at all. They are mere luxuries.
We have our rights, which do exist a priori even to many Atheists, because we fought for them.” Another commentator found our rights existed in our “potential to rise up and throw off our oppressors.” While insisting that we had a choice as to how many rights to give Mohammed, both correspondents worried that a lack of grounding in “potential” or “God” laid us dangerously close to moral relativism and a Nietzschean will to power model.
Haiti’s recent disastrous earthquake shows that rights do not exist independently of man’s belief and ability to afford them. As of the morning of January 31st, 2010 America has suspended evacuating critically injured Haitians to the US for care. Our issue? Cost. Florida’s health care system was reported to be, “quickly reaching saturation” and was “already under strain because of the winter influx of elderly people.” Even if those Haitians doomed to die think that God has given them the right to live, they will find out that that right has very little importance here on the earth.(1)
Secondly, the title of the article that announces our suspending the airlifts reads, “Haiti patients ‘will die’ because of US airlift halt.” Proximity is a factor, but I do not believe it is the reason the whole of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the US. China and Saudi Arabia simply do not care about people outside of their realm. They believe in their people’s rights, not human rights. Yet, ironically, we get the blame for not helping!! Again, rights, - and in this case the most basic right there is, the right to have your life saved - only come from nations that believe in them. Rights do not come universal precepts.
To protect rights we must make sure the West is solvent. If we can afford to save Haitians and give terrorist rights, that is groovy. But, ultimately, our duty is to keep our nation alive so that our vision of rights can survive. Outside of the West, there is no sustained, solvent tradition of rights. If the West falls, the right to be rescued, let alone vote, will die. Ask yourself which nation will bring them to us? In a meaningless and abstract way the “right” to a full trial and be airlifted to a hospital may continue. But, I do not see Saudi Arabia granting you either. Rights only come from nations, like ours, that believe in them. If we do not appreciate right’s geo-political basis we will likely fail to adequately appreciate the need to protect our interests.
Does that throw us open to cultural relativism? NO! Just as China and Saudi Arabia believe in and protect their way of life and beliefs for their people, we must do the same for our people. Our values meant that we cannot just start to silence or kill people here or abroad without qualms. We have a very firm domestic tradition of rights, democracy, and freedom of speech that would make such abuses appear starkly wrong to us. Socrates and Jefferson would call us traitors to our ancestors if we were needlessly violent or dismissive of rights. Christ would haunt us if we did not respect the individual. But, we must be clear that other nations celebrate conquest, submission, and enslavement. Rather than cultural relativists, recognizing that rights are only western and dependent on our solvency makes us more appreciative of their fragility and the need to realistically protect them.
(1) BBC News, Haiti patients ‘will die’ because of US airlift halt, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8489392.stm, January 31, 2010
Showing posts with label sheik khalid Mohammed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sheik khalid Mohammed. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sheik Khalid Mohammed, Rights, and the Terrorist Aftershock
Culturism does not hold that rights are – with apologies to the great Thomas Jefferson - inalienable or God-given. They do not hang in the sky enshrined by metaphysical truths as “human rights” advocated contend. Rights come from cultures that believe in them and can afford them. Enshrining rights in mystical ether and ignoring their real-world basis and costs endangers our nation.
Today the White House abandoned their plan to have Sheik Khalid Mohammed, the admitted 9-11 mastermind, tried in lower Manhattan. The decision was done on the basis of considerations that show rights are not metaphysical abstractions. Trying Mohammed requires creating a security perimeter. This would have meant locals would have had to have shown identification to get to their homes, traffic would have been terrible, and businesses would have been virtually inaccessible. Rights happen in real times and places.
Mohammed’s right to be tried in Manhattan would have come at the cost of others’ right to stay in business. The trial will cost, according to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley, around $200 million a year and last for several years. The Federal government may reimburse for some of the costs. But whoever supplies the dimes, we can see in times of financial stress and hiring freezes, Mohammed’s rights happen at the expense of others’ rights to get fire service, police protection, or teachers. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Rights cost money.
Rights happen in a spectrum that, in our history, could be said to run from lynching to Sheik Khalid Mohammed. Lynching could not have been called a form of justice when the wrong person was caught. But, for arguments sake, on that occasion when the person lynched was guilty, the justice was swift. Such deterrent and retribution required zero lawyers, delay, or cost. In the middle of our spectrum of justice, we have cases where guilt is in doubt and we have a trial. And, at the other extreme, we have a clearly guilty man getting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of protections. The extremes are clearly problematic.
During times of war, even America has had a culturist, rather than an absolute metaphysical, vision of rights. We did not, for example, both have the resources to give every person of Japanese descent a trial before relocation and fight World War Two. Nations have long interned enemy combatants, or potential enemy combatants, en masse for just such reasons. We knew that had we lost World War II, no one would have rights. We understood that rights do not exist in a vacuum; they cost money, take time, and require a culture that believes in them for them to be in existence.
It is unprecedented that we now, in debt and at war, spend hundreds of millions to protect a man clearly guilty of killing thousands of Americans. Obama believed that the cost was worth the international propaganda value of the trial. This change of location shows that he only secondarily realized the disruption caused by the trial will have a domestic political costs. It will also have the domestic impact of disrupting businesses and costing us each lots of money. In a time of War this chaos and economic bleeding could be considered a second terrorist hit. Until we realize that rights cost money and require a sustainable functioning society to buy them, we are vulnerable to such aftershock terrorism.
Today the White House abandoned their plan to have Sheik Khalid Mohammed, the admitted 9-11 mastermind, tried in lower Manhattan. The decision was done on the basis of considerations that show rights are not metaphysical abstractions. Trying Mohammed requires creating a security perimeter. This would have meant locals would have had to have shown identification to get to their homes, traffic would have been terrible, and businesses would have been virtually inaccessible. Rights happen in real times and places.
Mohammed’s right to be tried in Manhattan would have come at the cost of others’ right to stay in business. The trial will cost, according to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley, around $200 million a year and last for several years. The Federal government may reimburse for some of the costs. But whoever supplies the dimes, we can see in times of financial stress and hiring freezes, Mohammed’s rights happen at the expense of others’ rights to get fire service, police protection, or teachers. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Rights cost money.
Rights happen in a spectrum that, in our history, could be said to run from lynching to Sheik Khalid Mohammed. Lynching could not have been called a form of justice when the wrong person was caught. But, for arguments sake, on that occasion when the person lynched was guilty, the justice was swift. Such deterrent and retribution required zero lawyers, delay, or cost. In the middle of our spectrum of justice, we have cases where guilt is in doubt and we have a trial. And, at the other extreme, we have a clearly guilty man getting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of protections. The extremes are clearly problematic.
During times of war, even America has had a culturist, rather than an absolute metaphysical, vision of rights. We did not, for example, both have the resources to give every person of Japanese descent a trial before relocation and fight World War Two. Nations have long interned enemy combatants, or potential enemy combatants, en masse for just such reasons. We knew that had we lost World War II, no one would have rights. We understood that rights do not exist in a vacuum; they cost money, take time, and require a culture that believes in them for them to be in existence.
It is unprecedented that we now, in debt and at war, spend hundreds of millions to protect a man clearly guilty of killing thousands of Americans. Obama believed that the cost was worth the international propaganda value of the trial. This change of location shows that he only secondarily realized the disruption caused by the trial will have a domestic political costs. It will also have the domestic impact of disrupting businesses and costing us each lots of money. In a time of War this chaos and economic bleeding could be considered a second terrorist hit. Until we realize that rights cost money and require a sustainable functioning society to buy them, we are vulnerable to such aftershock terrorism.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Age of Aquarius meets the Age of the Terrorists
The naïve optimism of the hippy generation boggles the mind. No one dislikes the idea of universal love and peace. But that assumes that there is no evil. The unbelievable culpability of the generation of love stems from the fact that this generation’s parents fought against Hitler. They should have understood that unreasonable evil exists. We understand that the Woodstock generation needed a place in the sun and were overshadowed by the greatest generation. It makes sense that they needed a spectacular War with higher ideals than their parents to stake their generational claim and so fought against all they called sinful in an impure world. But, their doing this with an ignorance of history has created cultural ripples that endanger our very survival and it is time to grow up.
Our current generation faces a threat very similar to Hitler and the NAZIs in content, radical Islam. The proponents of this vision play hardball in an attempt to place an authoritarian theocratic stranglehold upon us. Were the Islamic vision implemented it would have many of the same odious features as NAZI Germany had. It would put a stranglehold on all freedom of speech, it would put women even farther back than NAZI Germany in terms of feminist freedoms, and it would give little men the power to brutally exercise violent authority over their enemies. One could hope that this Islamic vision would only include the traditional second-class citizenship given to non-believers in their societies, called dhimmitude. But NAZI Germany and Muslims allied over their hatred of Jews. A second holocaust, or at least the destruction of Israel, would not be unlikely if the power of Iran’s ruler, Ahmadinejad, and his ilk spread. And like NAZI Germany, when the radical Muslims take over the moderates will not dare voice dissent.
Barak Obama wholeheartedly embraces the sixties generation’s ideals. When spoke in Egypt and Turkey, he pleaded for the kindness and understanding from the Muslim world. Obama decided to go after those who used waterboarding on three terrorist and give the mastermind of 9 – 11 Sheik Khalid Mohammed a civilian trial to improve our image abroad. The concept is that if we are seen as loving, they will not hate us and we can all live in harmony. This might work with people that might already love us. But hateful evil monsters bent on our destruction cannot be reasoned with. The thought of reasoning with Al Qaeda or Hamas, like reasoning with an evil madman like Hitler, shows a naiveté that is pathological. Bad people can only be reached through inflicting pain. Bad men only divulge information with torture. And, in war even innocent people get hurt.
Multiculturalism is a manifestation of the same 1960s mindset that convinces Barak Obama that we can “all just get along.” In this vision all cultures can find peaceful coexistence because they all, deep down, believe in love, human rights, and the dignity of the individual. Its slogan “celebrate diversity” affirms that all cultures are essentially good and that, ironically, no diversity exists. In its darker side it goes back to the 1960’s anti-modernity, anti- western stance and blames us for not being the angels it expects all people to be. It lionizes the non-western as its founders lionized the Vietnamese as they fought us. Well, the North Vietnamese were violent warriors who turned their nation into a living hell after we left. All that is non-western is not good. To challenge the dominant unreal and dangerous 1960s cult of multiculturalism we need to spread the name of its opposite, culturism. Culturism acknowledges that sometimes cultures can be evil and unreasonable and must be dealt with as such. It recognizes that not all is peace, love, and flowers. As such it helps remind those who still carry the 1960s peace and love torch that their parents confrontation with evil was not a one-time occurrence.
Our current generation faces a threat very similar to Hitler and the NAZIs in content, radical Islam. The proponents of this vision play hardball in an attempt to place an authoritarian theocratic stranglehold upon us. Were the Islamic vision implemented it would have many of the same odious features as NAZI Germany had. It would put a stranglehold on all freedom of speech, it would put women even farther back than NAZI Germany in terms of feminist freedoms, and it would give little men the power to brutally exercise violent authority over their enemies. One could hope that this Islamic vision would only include the traditional second-class citizenship given to non-believers in their societies, called dhimmitude. But NAZI Germany and Muslims allied over their hatred of Jews. A second holocaust, or at least the destruction of Israel, would not be unlikely if the power of Iran’s ruler, Ahmadinejad, and his ilk spread. And like NAZI Germany, when the radical Muslims take over the moderates will not dare voice dissent.
Barak Obama wholeheartedly embraces the sixties generation’s ideals. When spoke in Egypt and Turkey, he pleaded for the kindness and understanding from the Muslim world. Obama decided to go after those who used waterboarding on three terrorist and give the mastermind of 9 – 11 Sheik Khalid Mohammed a civilian trial to improve our image abroad. The concept is that if we are seen as loving, they will not hate us and we can all live in harmony. This might work with people that might already love us. But hateful evil monsters bent on our destruction cannot be reasoned with. The thought of reasoning with Al Qaeda or Hamas, like reasoning with an evil madman like Hitler, shows a naiveté that is pathological. Bad people can only be reached through inflicting pain. Bad men only divulge information with torture. And, in war even innocent people get hurt.
Multiculturalism is a manifestation of the same 1960s mindset that convinces Barak Obama that we can “all just get along.” In this vision all cultures can find peaceful coexistence because they all, deep down, believe in love, human rights, and the dignity of the individual. Its slogan “celebrate diversity” affirms that all cultures are essentially good and that, ironically, no diversity exists. In its darker side it goes back to the 1960’s anti-modernity, anti- western stance and blames us for not being the angels it expects all people to be. It lionizes the non-western as its founders lionized the Vietnamese as they fought us. Well, the North Vietnamese were violent warriors who turned their nation into a living hell after we left. All that is non-western is not good. To challenge the dominant unreal and dangerous 1960s cult of multiculturalism we need to spread the name of its opposite, culturism. Culturism acknowledges that sometimes cultures can be evil and unreasonable and must be dealt with as such. It recognizes that not all is peace, love, and flowers. As such it helps remind those who still carry the 1960s peace and love torch that their parents confrontation with evil was not a one-time occurrence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)